Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) excels at user onboarding and conversion by removing the upfront crypto requirement. By leveraging meta-transactions and a paymaster model, it allows dApps to sponsor gas fees or let users pay with ERC-20 tokens. For example, Friend.tech used this to onboard thousands of users unfamiliar with ETH, demonstrating a direct impact on user acquisition metrics and session completion rates.
LABS
Comparisons
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) vs User-Paid Gas RPC: Abstracted Gas Payments
Comparison summary (max 300 chars)
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A technical breakdown of the core architectural and economic trade-offs between abstracted and user-paid gas models.
User-Paid Gas RPC takes a different approach by maintaining the native chain's economic security and predictability. This results in a simpler, non-custodial architecture where users directly pay validators, avoiding reliance on a third-party's solvency or whitelist management. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave use this model, as their sophisticated users prioritize self-custody and predictable, per-transaction costs over abstraction.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing mainstream adoption and simplifying the UX for non-crypto-native users, choose a Gas Sponsorship solution. If you prioritize architectural simplicity, cost predictability, and catering to a DeFi-savvy audience that expects to hold native gas tokens, the traditional User-Paid model remains optimal.
tldr-summary
Gas Sponsorship vs User-Paid RPC
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for abstracted gas payments at a glance.
01
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy)
Developer-Covered Gas Fees: The dApp or a third-party pays the transaction costs. This enables true gasless UX, removing the #1 friction point for new users. Critical for mass-market applications like social dApps (Lens, CyberConnect) or gaming where onboarding is paramount.
02
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy)
Flexible Payment Logic: Supports paymasters for complex sponsorship rules (e.g., first 10 txs free, free for NFT holders). Enables meta-transactions and account abstraction (ERC-4337) integrations. This matters for subscription models or targeted user incentives where you control the cost logic.
03
Traditional User-Paid RPC
Predictable Cost Structure: No hidden operational overhead. Your infrastructure cost is fixed RPC fees, not variable gas fees. This is essential for bootstrapped projects or enterprise B2B services with strict, auditable budgets and no tolerance for subsidy volatility.
04
Traditional User-Paid RPC
Simplified Architecture & Security: No need to manage secure private keys for a paymaster wallet or audit custom gas logic. Reduces smart contract risk surface. Ideal for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) where users are already crypto-native and expect to pay for network security.
GAS PAYMENT ABSTRACTION
Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for gas sponsorship versus traditional user-paid RPC.
| Metric | Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) | User-Paid Gas RPC |
|---|---|---|
User Gas Payment Required | ||
Avg. User Onboarding Time | < 1 min | ~5-15 min |
Developer Fee Model | Pay-as-you-go (per sponsored tx) | None (user pays network) |
Supported Gas Tokens | ERC-20, Stablecoins, Native | Native Chain Token Only |
ERC-4337 Account Abstraction | ||
Batch Transaction Support | ||
Typical Use Case | Mass Adoption, Gaming, Social dApps | DeFi, Expert Users, Wallets |
pros-cons-a
ABSTRACTED GAS PAYMENTS COMPARISON
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) vs User-Paid Gas RPC
Key strengths and trade-offs for two fundamentally different approaches to managing transaction costs. Choose based on your target users and business model.
02
Biconomy: Predictable Cost Structure
Key Advantage: DApps absorb gas costs, enabling subscription models or fiat-priced services. This matters for SaaS-like protocols (e.g., Rarible Protocol) that require stable, predictable operational expenses, decoupled from volatile gas prices on Ethereum or Polygon.
03
User-Paid RPC: Unmatched Protocol Security
Key Advantage: Users sign and pay for their own transactions, preserving the cryptographic guarantee of non-repudiation. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) where transaction authenticity and user sovereignty are non-negotiable for security audits and insurance.
pros-cons-b
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) vs User-Paid Gas RPC
Traditional User-Paid Gas RPC Pros & Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for abstracted gas payment models.
01
Gas Sponsorship RPC: User Onboarding
Key advantage: Eliminates the need for users to hold native tokens (e.g., ETH, MATIC) for fees. This matters for mass-market dApps like Web3 games (e.g., Axie Infinity) or social apps where seamless onboarding is critical. Users interact with ERC-20 tokens or NFTs without managing base-layer gas.
02
Gas Sponsorship RPC: Transaction Predictability
Key advantage: Enables fixed-price transactions in stablecoins, shielding users from gas price volatility. This matters for e-commerce and subscription services (e.g., decentralized SaaS) where predictable costs are required for business models. Protocols like Biconomy use meta-transactions and relayers to abstract complexity.
03
Gas Sponsorship RPC: Implementation Overhead
Key weakness: Requires integrating smart contract wallets (ERC-4337), relayers, and paymaster contracts, adding significant development complexity. This matters for rapid prototyping or MVP launches where speed is prioritized. Teams must manage sponsor fund replenishment and security audits for custom fee logic.
04
Gas Sponsorship RPC: Centralization & Cost
Key weakness: Introduces relayer dependency and sponsor operational costs, which can become a scaling bottleneck. This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols (e.g., perpetual DEXs) requiring ultra-low latency and censorship resistance. The sponsor bears the gas cost, impacting unit economics at scale.
05
User-Paid Gas RPC: Simplicity & Security
Key advantage: Leverages the blockchain's native security model with direct EOA (Externally Owned Account) signing. This matters for high-value DeFi transactions (e.g., on Uniswap, Aave) where users demand full control and auditability. No additional trust assumptions in relayers or paymasters.
06
User-Paid Gas RPC: Protocol Alignment
Key advantage: Fully aligns with Ethereum's economic incentives, where users pay for the network security they consume. This matters for protocol architects building public goods or infrastructure that must sustain the underlying chain's security budget (e.g., L2 sequencer fees).
07
User-Paid Gas RPC: User Friction
Key weakness: Creates a significant onboarding barrier requiring users to acquire native tokens via exchanges. This matters for consumer dApps targeting non-crypto natives, leading to high drop-off rates. Managing gas estimation and wallet pop-ups for every action degrades UX.
08
User-Paid Gas RPC: Cost Volatility
Key weakness: Exposes users to gas price spikes (e.g., during NFT mints or network congestion), making transaction costs unpredictable. This matters for micro-transactions and gaming where fees can exceed the value of the action, rendering the use case non-viable.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Model
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) for Mass Adoption
Verdict: The clear winner for onboarding non-crypto-native users. Strengths: Eliminates the primary UX hurdle of gas fees and wallet setup. Users can interact with dApps using familiar Web2 methods like credit cards or social logins. This is critical for consumer apps, social platforms, and enterprise pilots where user drop-off is the biggest risk. Trade-offs: You introduce a centralized relayer dependency and must manage the sponsor's operational costs. Protocols like Pimlico (ERC-4337 bundlers) and Candide offer more decentralized alternatives within this model.
User-Paid Gas RPC for Mass Adoption
Verdict: A significant barrier; not recommended as the primary flow. Strengths: Maintains pure decentralization and self-custody principles, appealing to a crypto-purist segment. Weaknesses: Requires users to hold the chain's native token (ETH, MATIC, etc.), understand gas estimation, and approve transactions. This creates fatal friction for mainstream users, as seen in high abandonment rates for wallet-first dApps.
BICONOMY VS STANDARD RPC
Technical Deep Dive: How Gas Sponsorship Works
A technical comparison of abstracted gas payment solutions, analyzing the architectural differences, cost models, and security implications between sponsored transactions and traditional user-paid models.
Gas Sponsorship RPC is cheaper for the end-user, as they pay $0. The cost is entirely absorbed by the dApp or sponsor via a pre-funded paymaster contract. In a User-Paid RPC model, the user directly bears the network gas fee, which fluctuates with congestion on chains like Ethereum or Arbitrum. The trade-off is that sponsorship shifts the cost burden and operational complexity to the application developer, who must manage paymaster funding and gas abstraction logic.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to help CTOs choose between abstracted and user-paid gas models based on core business priorities.
Gas Sponsorship RPC (Biconomy) excels at user acquisition and retention by removing the upfront crypto onboarding barrier. For example, dApps like Perpetual Protocol and CyberConnect leverage Biconomy's Gasless SDK to sponsor transactions, reporting a 20-30% increase in user conversion by eliminating the need for users to hold native tokens for fees. This model is ideal for consumer-facing applications where seamless onboarding is critical.
User-Paid Gas RPC (e.g., standard Alchemy, Infura endpoints) takes a different approach by preserving protocol economics and decentralization. This results in a trade-off: users bear the direct cost and complexity of gas, but the application avoids the operational overhead and financial liability of sponsoring potentially malicious or spam transactions. This model is foundational for DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave, where fee markets and MEV protection are integral to system security.
The key trade-off is between Growth and Sustainability. If your priority is maximizing user growth, reducing drop-off, and simplifying UX for a non-crypto-native audience, choose a Gas Sponsorship RPC. If you prioritize maintaining pure protocol economics, avoiding subsidy liabilities, and building for a financially-engaged DeFi/user base, the traditional User-Paid Gas RPC is the robust, battle-tested choice. Consider a hybrid approach using ERC-4337 Account Abstraction for a middle ground, allowing users to pay fees in ERC-20 tokens while keeping the application agnostic to sponsorship.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall